And what you said is a clear cut case of the logical fallacy of poisoning the well. You are uninterested in the input of people who don't match your preset criteria, that is the definition of poisoning the well.
You do NOT need a personal investment in order to read the studies, they're clear and easy to understand. And the studies show quite clearly that there is no known causative link between vaccines and autism. None.
In addition, all your postings state what you do; you are really an expert on stating your ideals posed for others to follow as opposed to arguing the actual points you are setting forth.
It's not really the merits of the case at issue you are arguing; it's only the "principles" of how you perceive yourself to apprehend the topic and your castigating of others' approach that doesn't appear to use your "ideal" approach that you are arguing. In other words, you are not really arguing your case but you are arguing how others should argue their case -- while you fail to follow your own advice. So all we gain is what you want us to perceive as your superior position as an "ideal" proponent when nothing could be further from the truth. It's a classic example of the blind attempting to lead "the blind."
I think the common vernacular for that is "hypocritical" and is characteristic of someone who can't really argue their case.